PC Minutes 2008-07-011
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 1, 2008
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Ruth and
Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong,
Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, Planning Intern,
Jimmy Paulding and Public Works Associate Engineer, Victor Devens.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Welcome to new Planning Commissioner, Elizabeth Ruth!
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Chair
Ray to approve minutes with the following corrections:
April 15, 2008
• Pg. 2, separate Commissioner Keen's comments from Commissioner Barneich's
comments.
• Pg. 6, correct spelling to "dispersed ".
• Pg. 6, second open bullet, clarify Mr. Strong's comments.
May 20, 2008
• Pg. 4, under Barneich's comments, check with Mr. Paulding about highlighted
word.
• Pg. 7, sixth bullet, under Ray's comments, change to "The more if an architect
adheres to the guidelines, the less it will feel bulky and massive"
• Pg. 5, first bullet under Barneich's comments, change to "... instead of three
zoncJ Single Family (SF) zones ..."
The motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote; Commissioner Tait being absent at the
April 15 meeting and Commissioner Ruth not being on the commission yet for these
meetings.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION:
1. Email dated June 26, 2008 from Damien Mavis, regarding item II.B., requesting
that Cherry Creek not be rezoned as proposed.
2. Letter dated June 29, 2008, from John Dollinger, regarding item II.A.,
requesting condition #11 be waived and condition #84 be reduced.
3. Email dated June 30, 2008 from Mark Vasquez, regarding item II.B., requesting
specific changes.
4. Additional plan sheet (elevations, parcel 2) for item II.A.
5. Letter dated July 1, 2008 from Susane Rotalo, regarding item II.B., requesting
that the area near her home not be rezoned.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
PAGE 2
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 07 -002 and PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 07 -002; APPLICANT — JOHN DOLLINGER;
LOCATION — VACANT PARCEL ON PINE STREET, APN 077 - 171 -020
Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for consideration to divide a 14,378 square foot
property into two Tots and construct two detached residential units. He responded to
questions about number, size and mitigation measures for oak trees; design for
impervious surfaces near the oaks; provisions for private open space; and the request
for waiver of fees for undergrounding utilities. Mr. Devens responded to questions
about onsite stormwater retention; the underground infiltration system; and sidewalk
alignment. Mr. Strong responded to questions about the in lieu fee for affordable
housing requirements.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment.
John Dollinger, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He expanded on his request
to waive undergrounding utility fees; discussed oak trees (including multi -trunk issues,
placement and mitigation measures); and described how old fencing will be removed
and new added on the west side of the property.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commissioner comments:
Keen
• In regards to the applicants' request for waiver, they should either pay the in lieu
fees or underground the utilities.
• He requested that staff verify there's enough room for tree well installation behind
the sidewalk per conditions of approval #35 and #43.
• In regards to the applicants' request for waiver of affordable housing fees, that
request is more appropriately heard by City Council than by Planning
Commission.
• Otherwise he doesn't have a problem with the project. For the record: although
he normally doesn't like flag lots because of the access issues for the rear
property owner, he understands the reasoning behind the design for this project.
Tait
• How many trees are proposed for mitigation? Six trees. (3:1 ratio for the two
being removed over 12" in diameter). There will be five in back and one in front.
• He likes the pervious paving, Hollywood driveway and saving existing oak trees.
• He agreed with Commissioner Keen on the undergrounding and affordable
housing issues.
• It's a good site for two homes.
Barneich
• The condition for a 10' street tree easement should be followed up on, so that
they're actually planted.
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
• Even though it's just below the minimum building size for density, it's consistent
with the neighborhood.
• She agreed with Commissioners Tait and Keen that an undergrounding fee is
needed, and the affordable housing fee can be appealed to City Council.
• She would like to condition the oak trees for mitigation to be 15 gallon size and
grown at a local nursery from local acorns.
• Instead of mitigating with six oaks, she would like eight to be planted as
mitigation for loss of the multi - trunked trees.
Ray
• She agreed about not waiving the undergrounding fee, and that the affordable
housing fee was better left at City Council's discretion.
Ruth
• Is the Hollywood driveway a condition or an option? The applicant has the
choice of doing that or pervious pavers.
• It's a nice project and will fit in well with the neighborhood.
• She's not willing to set a precedent by waiving the undergrounding fee.
After discussion on Commissioner Barneich's additional oak tree conditions, there was
consensus amongst commissioners. Commissioner Keen suggested they could be
used for the two required street trees.
Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve
Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 07 -002 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 07-
002 with the following changes:
• There shall be eight (8) oak trees planted as mitigation (instead of six). They
shall be 15- gallon size oaks trees, grown locally from local acorns. They could
be located at the front of the property to be used as street trees behind the
sidewalk.
and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2066
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
07-002 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 07 -002; APN 077-
171 -020; APPLIED FOR BY JOHN DOLLINGER
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Ruth, Tait, Chair Ray
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of July, 2008.
PAGE 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment.
PAGE 4
B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08 -003; APPLICANT — CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - THE VILLAGE D -2.4 HISTORIC CHARACTER
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Mr. Paulding presented the staff report for possible changes to Single Family (SF) and
Village Residential (VR) zoning in the D -2.4 Historic Character Design Overlay District
and amendments to the Design Guidelines and Standards (DGS) regarding Floor Area
Ratio (FAR), Lot Coverage, Setbacks and Building Heights as well as definitions in the
Development Code. He discussed the history of projects that started this discussion
and Commissioners request for regulation studies to limit mansionization in the Village.
Given public comments from a survey and the previous public workshop,
Commissioners and the public directed staff to write regulations that address bulk and
scale in the Village by modifying FAR, lot coverage, building height and setbacks.
Planning Commission should discuss the changes, direct staff to proceed to ARC, and
then continue the project to a date certain.
In reply to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Paulding clarified items from the staff
report regarding the new definition of FAR in the Design Guidelines to include garages;
open space standards and enforcement issues; proposed rear and side yard setback
standards; garage standards (placement requirements and setbacks); lot coverage
definition (should include outside walls); ARC review of Minor Exception applications in
the D -2.4 district; reasoning for 75% restriction on second story square footage;
definition of "roof plate "; ARC review of changes as suggested in Mark Vasquez's letter;
and redundancy of wording "where feasible" and "where such placement is in keeping
with the existing character of the neighborhood ".
Mark Vasquez, architect, discussed his letter supporting the changes with modifications.
The second floor setback may be problematic with certain architectural styles. All
roofed structures, including walls, should be considered in lot coverage calculations.
40% FAR would be better than 35% for the 0 -4,000 sf lot size. Garage placement
should limit the exposure of the garage to the face of the home. Open space should be
included in new guidelines. In response to commissioner questions, he discussed
calculating overhangs of eaves in lot coverage; minor exceptions for height restrictions
on Victorian style buildings; and reasoning for including open space requirements.
Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch Street, spoke about how it would affect her lot. She
supported keeping 40% (inclusive of garage) for the 0 -4,000 sf category.
Floyd Campbell, 155 Valley View (owner of property on Crown Hill), expressed concern
about new requirements that would make so many properties legally non - conforming.
On the smaller lot size, the homes would have to be extremely small to comply with new
standards. Construction costs are significantly more on second stories with second
story setbacks.
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
Jerry Sanger, 573 Crown Hill, hopes his recently approved projects will still be legally
conforming to the new requirements. More environmentally conscious integrated
paneling or straw bale walls are thicker and should be encouraged, not penalized.
Would rooftop solar panels be counted in the height restriction? There is a topography
discrepancy between the Crown Hill area and the side of town opposite Branch Street.
Last — how would setback requirements be applied on flag Tots?
Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment.
PAGE 5
Commissioner comments:
Barneich
• In response to Mr. Campbell's concern, fewer properties will probably become
legally non - conforming, since the study numbers were very conservative.
There was a 5 minute break at 8:40 p.m.
Barneich (continued)
• She prefers alternative A.
• FAR calculations should include the garage.
o It's a good idea to include permitted, roofed structures, as well.
• She supports the new height restriction, but is a little uncomfortable with the 30'
exception (which may be too high).
• In terms of garage placement and second story setback, they're good ideas, but
could be more developed from Mr. Vasquez's ideas. This would help applicants
know what to expect when their project is reviewed by ARC.
o ARC should consider the maximum roofplate idea of 25'.
• Exhibit A, #4 should use the word "shall" instead of "may ".
o Topography should be considered for areas with unique topography.
Keen
• He also prefers alternative A.
• The minor exception for 30' height is acceptable, to make the Victorian style
houses look better.
• Garages need to be included in FAR calculations. Covered permitted structures
should be included, too.
• Lot coverage should be measured from the exterior of the walls.
• Second story 75% is acceptable. There should be a second story setback
wherever possible, so there's not a big wall right against the neighbors.
• The garage should not be flush with the front of the house.
• 25' should be an acceptable height limit, since they would average heights in
areas like Larchmont and Crown Hill.
• An open space requirement is needed for families to live and play in.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
Ray
Tait
PAGE 6
• She agrees with alternative A, instead of the rezoning.
• The next Development Code cleanup should address things like the definitions of
FAR and lot coverage (not this DCA).
• She would like to see additional changes before commissioners make a motion:
o Clean up Exhibit A — Garage /Parking to read, "One and two car garages
shall be located to the rear or side of the residence where feasible and
where such placement is in kccping with the existing character of the
weed", because it's redundant.
o Change the range in #2 of Exhibit A.
o Add some form of language regarding Mr. Vasquez's comments about:
• 4.b.i — Add 1' additional setback for each foot of additional height
over 25'.
• 5.a, b & c — regarding articulation of second stories.
o Adjust the range per Ms. Flores' comments to 40% including the garage.
o She disagrees about the necessity of adding open space requirements,
because the additional wording about roofed structures helps address that
without additional property rights and enforcement issues.
o In regards to nonconforming Tots, the Village is eclectic and we'll always
have them. This is only a design overlay.
o Staff should iron out language revisions.
• He agrees with alternative A, including the garage in FAR calculations, and
making 25' the maximum building height.
• The second story setbacks should be on all sides (not just the street side).
• He likes the suggestion to encourage smaller, single bay garage doors.
• Providing functional open space is very important. Backyards are important for
kids - 10' sf slabs of concrete are not enough.
• Rear and side loaded garages should be in COA's.
• He's not sure that 75% is okay per exhibit A — maybe staff could review again.
• Staff and ARC should review Mr. Vasquez's suggestions in depth.
• Include all permitted roofed structures in the FAR ratio.
• He agrees with Ms. Flores about changing the FAR on small lots.
• He agrees with Mr. Sanger about not penalizing people for using environmentally
conscious walls because of their thickness.
Ruth
• She agrees with alternative A.
• Staff should work on semantics and definitions.
• Do not include eaves in lot coverage definitions, because in one jurisdiction they
stopped building houses with eaves.
• Open space requirements aren't necessary. Not all homeowners have kids.
• Consider adding Mr. Vasquez's comments to the final draft.
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
Barneich
• She agreed with Commissioners Keen and Tait that an open space requirement
should be added.
• She hopes Mr. Vasquez's letter is presented to ARC for review.
• ARC review is important for feedback on architecture and design in this area.
Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to direct staff to make
changes (leaving open space as a discussion item) and take Development Code
Amendment Case No. 08 -003 to ARC on August 4 and return to Planning Commission
on August 19.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Keen, Barneich, Ruth and Tait
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 08 -005; APPLICANT — LEONARD GRANT;
LOCATION — EL CAMINO REAL (BEHIND ARCO).
Mr. Strong presented the staff report for a request for a time extension for Tentative
Tract Map 04 -004 and Planned Unit Development 04 -005.
There were no Commissioner questions or comments. Chair Ray opened the
hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it.
Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve Time
Extension Case No. 08 -005 and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2067
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME
EXTENSION 08 -005 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04 -004
AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04 -004; LOCATED
ON EL CAMINO REAL (BEHIND ARCO); APPLIED FOR BY
LEONARD GRANT
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Keen, Barneich, Ruth and Tait
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of July, 2008.
PAGE 7
Case No
- Ap
Address
m' D escription. df
Action
_,Planner .:
TUP 08 -008
Diane Lang
285 Miller Way
To allow a wedding
reception for 75 people.
A.
J. Bergman
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 1, 2008
IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/
NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE MAY 20, 2008:
Chair Ray recused herself, as she lives within 300' of this address. The Commission
had no concerns or questions on the administrative item.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Keen noted that at City Council, a member of the public had commented
only one of the Commissioners (Barneich) had actually walked the site. For the record,
he has visited it 3 -4 times over the last 24 years (since 1985, when the James Way
habitat was first built). Plus, three days before the hearing, he walked the site again.
For someone to blatantly say that they didn't do their job is very offensive.
Caren Ray said she knew she wouldn't be present at the July 15 meeting.
Commissioners Barneich and Keen will be absent from the August 5 meeting.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray.
ATTEST:
KATHY MJJDOZA FOR Of REARDON- SMITH,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB TRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR
PAGE 8
CAREN RAY, HAIR
1